Caregiver-infant interactions strength
Research support, lab, distractions controlled, recorded, unlikely miss key, inter-rater, reliability and validity
Caregiver-infant interactions limitation
Difficulty observing babies, subtle movements, meanings, lack coordination, immobile, perspective
Caregiver-infant interactions limitation and counterpoint
- Doesn’t show importance in development, synchrony and reciprocity, just names, purpose of behaviours
- Isabella et al, degree of synchrony mothers and infants, 20, quality, high levels synchrony = quality
Shaffer’s stages of attachment strength and counterpoint
- Good external validity, mothers observing, no stress
- However, mothers unlikely objective, biased, misremembering, not accurate despite natural
Shaffer’s stages of attachment limitation
Problems studying the asocial stage, poor coordination, immobile, anxiety subtle, hard to report, actually antisocial but appear social
Shaffer’s stages of attachment strength
Practical application in day care, asocial and indiscriminate attachment stages , straightforward, comforted by any skilled adult, specific attachment stage problematic
Role of the father limitation
Competing research questions prevents a simple answer, lack of clarity, into primary and secondary attachment, depends on role
Role of the father limitation and counterpoint
- Different conclusions, Grossman and Grossman fathers secondary with importance, McCallum and Golomook children growing up in single mother / lesbian families turn out differently
- Fathers typically take on distinctive role, other parents simply adapt to accommodate it
Role of the father strength
Offer advice to parents, agonising over roles, pressure, deciding whether to have children, reduce parental anxiety,
Animal research limitation
Problems with generalisation, Lorenz birds and Harlows monkeys, primates sufficiently human like, effects of psychological harm the same for humans
Animal research strength
Support for Lorenz findings, imprinting, Regolin and Vallortigara, Chicks simple shape moving combos, followed original most, innate mechanism
Animal research limitation
Ethics Harlow, long term distress and damage, questions whether knowledge > methods
Animal research strength
Real world value Harlow, insight into attachment formation, Howe social workers and clinical psychologists, lack of bonding experience, risk factor in development, care of captive wild monkeys and attachment
Learning theory of attachment limitation
Contradictory research, Harlow, more time baby monkeys towel no food, Lorenz, baby geese first moving object
Learning theory of attachment strength
Social learning theory, Hay and Vespo, parents teach children to love them demonstrating attachment behaviours,
Learning theory of attachment strength and counterpoint
- Although it seems unlikely that food plays a central role in attachment, it is possible that conditioning has a part to play, baby associates warmth = particular adult = main attachment figure
- Both oparant and classical see baby as passive e.g. Isabella
Learning theory of attachment limitations
Counter evidence human studies, Schaffer and Emerson mother even if someone else feeds, Isabella high level of interactional synchronty predict quality of attachment, do not relate food as main factor
Bowlbys theory of attachment strength and counterpoint
- Support for the internal working model, Bailey et al, 99 mothers poor attachment leads to children who are poorly attached
- Social development, genetic differences in anxiety and social ability affect social behaviour, also impact parenting ability (Kornienko), Bowlby overstated importance of internal working model
Bowlbys theory of attachment strength
Support social releasers, Brazeton et al, baby distressed, attachment figure ignore social releasers, researchers, primary attachment figure ignore social releases, previously responsive babies become stressed, motionless on floor, role of social releasers, emotional / attachment development
Bowlbys theory of attachment limitation
Mixed evidence for Monotropy, Shaffer and Emerson, minority formed multiple attachments at one time, unclear uniqueness first attachment, strength vs quality, incorrect about unique quality / importance primary attachment
Bowlbys theory of attachment limitation
Socially sensitive research
The strange situation strength
Good reliability, Bick et al, inter-rater reliability, agreement 94%, controlled conditions, large movements, easy to observe, confident of non subjectiveness
The strange situation strength and counterpoint
- Good predictive validity, McCormick et al attachment types predict later social behaviour e.g. school success and less involvement in bullying
- Measurers something important in later development, not always attachment, Kagen genetically influenced anxiety variations
The strange situation limitation
Culture bound, cultural experience affect response to SS, Takahashi Japanese babies displayed high separation anxiety, disproportionate no insecure resistant, not due to attachment insecurity, Japanese barely separated, stereotypes / prejudice
